IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v78y2017icp98-106.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Big game hunter preferences for hunting club attributes: A choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Mingie, James C.
  • Poudyal, Neelam C.
  • Bowker, J.M.
  • Mengak, Michael T.
  • Siry, Jacek P.

Abstract

Big game hunting on private leased forestland is popular in Georgia and other parts of the southern United States. Very often, the leasing arrangement takes the form of a club, wherein a specified number of members pay an annual fee to either a landowner or the club's manager to have a certain bundle of access rights in accordance with other club regulations or attributes. Currently, little is formally known about hunter preferences for club characteristics. The objective of this study was to identify hunter preferences for attributes related to big game hunting clubs and to derive measures of economic value for these attributes. This was accomplished by conducting a choice experiment (CE) via a mail survey in 2012 of licensed big game hunters in Georgia. The CE presented respondents with alternative hunting clubs representing different combinations of attributes including acreage, membership number, harvest regulations, recent forest management activity, and annual club dues. Responses were analyzed with conditional logit and multinomial probit regression models. Consistent with economic theory, hunters preferred more acreage and fewer members. The least preferred harvest regulation was a one buck limit without size restriction while recent clearcutting was the least preferred forest management activity. Results should provide a better understanding of big game hunters' preferences and trade-offs for club attributes and should help landowners and club managers make management decisions that enhance the value of their resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Mingie, James C. & Poudyal, Neelam C. & Bowker, J.M. & Mengak, Michael T. & Siry, Jacek P., 2017. "Big game hunter preferences for hunting club attributes: A choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 98-106.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:78:y:2017:i:c:p:98-106
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934116302106
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.013?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Moon, Amanda, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-17.
    2. Hausman, Jerry A & Wise, David A, 1978. "A Conditional Probit Model for Qualitative Choice: Discrete Decisions Recognizing Interdependence and Heterogeneous Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(2), pages 403-426, March.
    3. Michael D. Creel & John B. Loomis, 1990. "Theoretical and Empirical Advantages of Truncated Count Data Estimators for Analysis of Deer Hunting in California," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(2), pages 434-441.
    4. Roe, Brian & Boyle, Kevin J. & Teisl, Mario F., 1996. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 145-159, September.
    5. Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2005. "Effects coding in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(10), pages 1079-1083, October.
    6. Shrestha, Ram K. & Alavalapati, Janaki R.R., 2004. "Effect of Ranchland Attributes on Recreational Hunting in Florida: A Hedonic Price Analysis," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(3), pages 763-772, December.
    7. White,Halbert, 1996. "Estimation, Inference and Specification Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521574464, January.
    8. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    9. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-1240, September.
    10. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    11. McFadden, Daniel, 1980. "Econometric Models for Probabilistic Choice among Products," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(3), pages 13-29, July.
    12. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 827-840, August.
    13. Anwar Hussain & Ian A. Munn & Jerry Brashier & W. Daryl Jones & James E. Henderson, 2013. "Capitalization of Hunting Lease Income into Northern Mississippi Forestland Values," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(1), pages 137-153.
    14. Shrestha, Ram K. & Alavalapati, Janaki R.R., 2004. "Effect of Ranchland Attributes on Recreational Hunting in Florida: A Hedonic Price Analysis," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(3), pages 1-10, December.
    15. Mark L. Rockel & Mary Jo Kealy, 1991. "The Value of Nonconsumptive Wildlife Recreation in the United States," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(4), pages 422-434.
    16. Gan, Christopher E.C. & Luzar, E. Jane, 1993. "A Conjoint Analysis Of Waterfowl Hunting In Louisiana," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 25(2), pages 1-10, December.
    17. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    18. MacKenzie, John, 1990. "Conjoint Analysis Of Deer Hunting," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 19(2), pages 1-9, October.
    19. Kerry R. Livengood, 1983. "Value of Big Game from Markets for Hunting Leases: The Hedonic Approach," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 59(3), pages 287-291.
    20. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Gary Koop, 2002. "Modelling Recreation Demand Using Choice Experiments: Climbing in Scotland," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(3), pages 449-466, July.
    21. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    22. Pope, C. Arden, III & Stoll, John R., 1985. "The Market Value Of Ingress Rights For White-Tailed Deer Hunting In Texas," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 17(1), pages 1-6, July.
    23. Hwa Nyeon Kim & W. Douglass Shaw & Richard T. Woodward, 2007. "The Distributional Impacts of Recreational Fees: A Discrete Choice Model with Incomplete Data," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 561-574.
    24. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    25. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    26. Gan, Christopher & Luzar, E. Jane, 1993. "A Conjoint Analysis of Waterfowl Hunting in Louisiana," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 36-45, December.
    27. Juutinen, Artti & Mitani, Yohei & Mäntymaa, Erkki & Shoji, Yasushi & Siikamäki, Pirkko & Svento, Rauli, 2011. "Combining ecological and recreational aspects in national park management: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1231-1239, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mishra, Bijesh, 2022. "Economics and human dimension of active management of forest-grassland ecotone in South-central USA under changing climate," MPRA Paper 116200, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 30 Jul 2022.
    2. Huber, Christopher & Meldrum, James & Richardson, Leslie, 2018. "Improving confidence by embracing uncertainty: A meta-analysis of U.S. hunting values for benefit transfer," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PB), pages 225-236.
    3. Permadi, Dwiko B. & Burton, Michael & Pandit, Ram & Race, Digby & Walker, Iain, 2018. "Local community's preferences for accepting a forestry partnership contract to grow pulpwood in Indonesia: A choice experiment study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 73-83.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rulleau, Bénédicte & Dachary-Bernard, Jeanne, 2012. "Preferences, rational choices and economic valuation: Some empirical tests," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 198-206.
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    3. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    4. Bart Neuts & Peter Nijkamp & Eveline Van Leeuwen, 2012. "Crowding Externalities from Tourist Use of Urban Space," Tourism Economics, , vol. 18(3), pages 649-670, June.
    5. Rose Fiamohe & Tebila Nakelse & Aliou Diagne & Papa A. Seck, 2015. "Assessing the Effect of Consumer Purchasing Criteria for Types of Rice in Togo: A Choice Modeling Approach," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(3), pages 433-452, June.
    6. Carole Ropars-Collet & Mélody Leplat & Philippe Le Goffe & Marie Lesueur, 2015. "La pêche professionnelle est-elle un facteur d’attractivité récréative sur le littoral ?," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 66(4), pages 729-754.
    7. Grafeld, Shanna & Oleson, Kirsten & Barnes, Michele & Peng, Marcus & Chan, Catherine & Weijerman, Mariska, 2016. "Divers' willingness to pay for improved coral reef conditions in Guam: An untapped source of funding for management and conservation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 202-213.
    8. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    9. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    10. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    11. Oliver Froer, 2003. "Using Stated Preference Methods for Biodiversity Valuation. A critical analysis," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 217/2003, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    12. Houessionon, P. & Fonta, W. M. & Bossa, A. Y. & Sanfo, S. & Thiombiano, N. & Zahonogo, P. & Yameogo, T. B. & Balana, Bedru, "undated". "Economic valuation of ecosystem services from small-scale agricultural management interventions in Burkina Faso: a discrete choice experiment approach," Papers published in Journals (Open Access) H048370, International Water Management Institute.
    13. Halkos, George & Galani, Georgia, 2016. "Assessing willingness to pay for marine and coastal ecosystems: A Case Study in Greece," MPRA Paper 68767, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    15. Jan Vanstockem & Liesbet Vranken & Brent Bleys & Ben Somers & Martin Hermy, 2018. "Do Looks Matter? A Case Study on Extensive Green Roofs Using Discrete Choice Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, January.
    16. Hoyos Ramos, David, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments for environmental valuation," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    17. Ropars‑Collet, Carole & Le Goffe, Philippe & Lefnatsa, Qods, 2021. "Does catch‑and‑release increase the recreational value of rivers? The case of salmon fishing," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 102(4), September.
    18. Tobias Holmsgaard Larsen & Thomas Lundhede & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2020. "Assessing the value of surface water and groundwater quality improvements when time lags and outcome uncertainty exist: Results from a choice experiment survey across four different countries," IFRO Working Paper 2020/12, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    19. Rambonilaza, Tina, 2005. "Land-use planning and public preferences: What can we learn from choice experiments method?," MPRA Paper 9225, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised May 2007.
    20. Carol A. Jones & Katherine A. Pease, 1997. "Restoration‐Based Compensation Measures In Natural Resource Liability Statutes," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 15(4), pages 111-122, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:78:y:2017:i:c:p:98-106. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.